Football and Waldorf circus

They're discussing football and brain damage
on the WC. There is a little confusion here because by "football",
Europeans think of soccer, while Americans think more of 'contact
sport' and that oval ball. Waldorf students don't play football
in school for some reason. Perhaps because it's competitive.

When I heard of this, I thought we should
picture Steiner with a football in his hand to promote the sport
- although I can't stand the flag waving, heavy drinking and
sometimes heavy fighting football culture swimming in ball-money
and media attention, but that's beside the point here. Well now,
if the soccer ball, which is round, represents the earth, we
are actually kicking the earth around when we play this game.
The little Napoleon in our bellies is having a - a ball. So I
was suggesting to make up some "Steiner quote" like
that to fool the PLANS'ers, but the idea was discouraged, because
if they did some investigation and couldn't locate the reference,
they would insist it had been edited out and hidden somewhere
in the unspeakable Goetheanum basement where secret rituals are
taking place with American oval balls, which represent the shape
the earth will become if the Superbowl becomes too popular.

Hello all. I did a turn posting on the Waldorf
Critics list some time ago, but it was too much trouble to continue.
My email problems plus long absences from the board led to me
being unsubbed one too many times.

But I'm interested to see you trying to lure
the critics to debate here--out of the reach of the hypocritical
and arbitrarily enforced "ad hom" policy. Good luck.
Some of those critics could really use a little change of scenery...

Waldorf students don't play football in
school for some reason. Perhaps because it's competitive.

Waldorf students here do play soccer. Waldorf
students also compete in track, Olympic games, basketball, volleyball,
etc. They don't play football--and though there are probably
many good reasons not to have football in Waldorf schools, a
simple and straightforward explanation would do fine. Most Waldorf
schools would have a tough time pulling together 20 or so kids
who want to play football, and if they did, they'd have a very
hard time finding similar sized schools to compete against. Football
is very hard to do when you have a small school.

As was so often the case when I was participating
there, a straightforward question about football is bound to
generate quite a few crazy histrionics. So many of the critics
prefer any answers to such questions to come loaded with ominous
overtones--common sense answers don't satisfy them. What they're
looking for is something "woo-woo" (a term one of them
used), something so oddball and obscure that they can feel a
self-satisfied reassurance now that their OWN children are no
longer under Waldorf's Evil Spell.

Anyway, soccer players hit the ball with their
heads. Pediatricians and advocates for sports safety have linked
these headers to brain injury. The American Academy of Pediatrics
is quite concerned about the headers. Fifty percent of professional
soccer players exhibit evidence of some level of injury...35%
serious recreational players do same.

Waldorf critics spend so much time looking
at the world through anti-Steinerism, they've lost touch with
what the mainstream is saying, and what reasons IT gives for
goings on. Some of the critics seem to behave as if they're living
in some kind of sci-fi RPG detective game. Which is fine, but
ironic and amusing since they're convinced it's the Anthroposophists
that are acting crazy.

Sorry. I notice some of you have managed to
list your name in addition to your email, but I don't know how
to do this. My name is Linda Clemens, and I believe you and I
participated in a few threads together on the critics list.

Nice to see you again.

I notice another critic has surfaced there
to toss in more Waldorf woo-woo about soccer. Our school has
soccer. San Francisco Waldorf has soccer. If anybody bothered
to google it, they'd see many Waldorf schools with soccer teams.
Leaves me shaking my head. I almost half miss the crazy debates
that would go on there, that nutty disconnect between what they
think they know or think they heard, and what they could see
with their own eyes if they bothered to look.

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Mike Helsher wrote:

Someone wrote:

I'm not an anthroposophist, btw. But thanks
for having me.

Hi and thanks for your input. Would it
be to much to ask for your name?

Sorry. I notice some of you have managed
to list your name in addition to your email, but I don't know
how to do this. My name is Linda Clemens, and I believe you and
I participated in a few threads together on the critics list.

Hi Linda,

I think I do remember you. There was this
young Waldorf grad, David, I think his name was, and he was getting
flamed by this guy called Lemiur, or something like that. I got
so mad that I signed up and had quite a "pissing contest"
with the guy. I was surprised that I didn't get booted. David
was so appalled he e-mailed me off list and asked me to leave
the poor guy alone. I couldn't help my self though, until DD
finally put a stop to it.

I wasn't on the list when this Michael Coop
guy was, but I have read allot of the stuff in the wc archives,
and I' pretty sure that this Lemiur guy was actually him. You
got into it with him too; quite a circus a. ;^)

Oh the good old days of "waxing eloquently"
on the critics list.

Nice to have you Linda. And thanks for fighting
the good fight over on the WC.

I think I do remember you. There was this
young Waldorf grad, David, I think his name was, and he was getting
flamed by this guy called Lemiur, or something like that.

Yep, that was me :-). Lumiere......... who
appeared suddenly and contributed next to nothing that I could
see except an endless barrage of pompous and gratuitous insults,
aided and abetted by others hungry to throw a cheap shot or two
of their own. The moderator and his "Administrator Warning"
whistle were strangely quiet.

I got so mad that I signed up and had quite
a "pissing contest" with the guy. I was surprised that
I didn't get booted. David was so appalled he e-mailed me off
list and asked me to leave the poor guy alone.

"Poor guy?" Lumiere was acting like
a two bit street thug wearing a borrowed suit.

You got into it with him too; quite a circus
a. ;^)

Yeah...a circus. And it seemed to me that
lumiere ducked out just before the Dancing Bears were herded
back into their cages. I didn't know who he was, but there was
no mistaking what he was about.

Oh the good old days of "waxing eloquently"
on the critics list.

Yeah, the good old days .......

Nice to have you Linda. And thanks for
fighting the good fight over on the WC.

They're discussing football and brain damage
on the WC. There is a little confusion here because by "football",
Europeans think of soccer, while Americans think more of 'contact
sport' and that oval ball. Waldorf students don't play football
in school for some reason. Perhaps because it's competitive.

When I heard of this, I thought we should
picture Steiner with a football in his hand to promote the sport
- although I can't stand the flag waving, heavy drinking and
sometimes heavy fighting football culture swimming in ball-money
and media attention, but that's beside the point here. Well now,
if the soccer ball, which is round, represents the earth, we
are actually kicking the earth around when we play this game.
The little Napoleon in our bellies is having a - a ball. So I
was suggesting to make up some "Steiner quote" like
that to fool the PLANS'ers, but the idea was discouraged, because
if they did some investigation and couldn't locate the reference,
they would insist it had been edited out and hidden somewhere
in the unspeakable Goetheanum basement where secret rituals are
taking place with American oval balls, which represent the shape
the earth will become if the Superbowl becomes too popular.

Hmmmm. First of all, I admit that I am prejudiced
against soccer, mostly because I live in Argentina, where soccer
(futbol) is the opium of the people. The game itself isn't particularly
violent, but the fans are grouped into gangs that not only fight
but kill each other on a fairly regular basis. And not only here,
but all over Latin America, and even in Europe the hooligans
are epidemic. When I lived in Germany they didn't even let Brit
fans into the country when an English team was playing. I haven't
heard that this happens in the U.S:, maybe because few there
give a damn, because they're too concerned with baseball (see
the esoteric aspects of same at: http://southerncrossreview.org/12/diamond.htm

Now, to what Steiner said. In his usual democratic
manner: No soccer in the Waldorf school! Why? the 2 reasons I
remember are - 1) The head is the seat of the brain and is used
for thinking. Soccer is the only human activity in which the
head is used as an tool (to hammer the ball). 2) the round ball
is the shape of the human head. Continually kicking it unconsciously
engenders violence against humanity. Please don't anyone ask
me for references, I'm writing from memory, and that's only the
gist of what he said.

I don't know of any esoteric aspects of American
football (they're still occult), but although it is physically
more violent than soccer, the ball is oval and is only kicked
occasionally anyway. (There's a little Argentine guy named Gramatica
who plays for I-forget-which NFL team and who specializes in
kicking extra points and field goals. I worry, though, that if
the defence ever gets to him he'll be squashed like a bug.) Also,
it involves intricate mathematical coordination and engenders
the baring of boobs at the SuperBowl.

OK - here's my two cent contribution to the
theme. The explanation that I heard at the Sacrmento Waldorf
School while interning is, as has been usual in my experience,
a more elaborate and complex one. And, as usual in Waldorf Education,
very little applies to "the child" en masse. There
is so much distinction between children every year, sometimes
every month!!

What I was given to understand, is that it
is the activity of Kicking that is undesirable in children younger
than 14 - until the releasing of the astral body, because it
concentrates too much life force energy from the etheric down
into the feet (the metabolic system) and, since the etheric forces
(freed at the change of teeth) are now being used in the rhythmic
system, with "heart-thinking" as we strive to nurture
it in Waldorf Education from First to Eighth grade, a lot of
concentration of energy in an activity such as soccer or other
kicking based sports "drags down" the emerging thought
energies of the child into the lower limbic system. Baseball
and basketball are preferable, because the energy stays more
in the middle zone of the body. The phenomenon that was pointed
out to me and that I constantly observe whenever I see pictures
of professional athletes (more so in American Football than European/
South American soccer) is to see the size of many of the players'
necks and shoulders. It's like something has "sunk down"
from their heads. I have seen the change in adolescent boys who
play football. It can be quite startling.

And, as happens so often with "Waldorf
theory" things get snatched out of context and applied willy-nilly
to all ages and circumstances and this makes it usually just
sound nuts. As I understand it, it is fine for the high school,
and probably not that harmful for 7th & 8th graders in today's
world to play either of these sports. But there are probably
a number of good reasons to hold off with younger children. There
is so much in today's world that seeks to "drag them down"
into their lower limbic anyway, that it is harder and harder
tohelp them keep heads raised toward
the stars. Also, the whole question of "organized sports"
as they exist in the United States has its share of "horror
stories" of over zealous parents and all kinds of bad adult
examples.

Personally, I wouldn't seek to prevent children
playing soccer on their own volition on the playground at recess.
And I wouldn't advise a parent whose child had a real emotional
attachment to a sport like soccer because of role models he or
she admired either in professional sports or in his or her family,
to prohibit their joining a team. But I would recommend sometimes
a "balancing" act - such as making sure that the child
also was encouraged to study a musical instrument or join a chorus
or some other such "heart" activity that he or she
enjoyed. Also, for some individual children, especially those
little "airy-fairy" ones, a little soccer might be
a very good thing, as long as it wasn't in a setting that was
too harshly competetive. Might be really good for some of the
phlegmatics, too, but again, one would have to watch out that
the atmosphere was positive and supportive, not harsh and critical.
Of course, plenty of cholerics would probably love soccer, etc.
If they were really set on it, as I said I would say it's fine,
as long as lots of other areas of their lives were being attended
to (especially reading and "homework"). The melancholics
wholike sport are probably mostly melancholic
- choleric, so the same idea would apply as to the cholerics
proper. "Super-melancholics" probably just watch from
the sidelines and fantasize about playing. (Please take these
all as generalizations).

A little bit of lots of sports can and should
be introduced to the children over the eight year class, at whatever
time feels right to the teacher with his or her own set of kids
and the curriculum. Sports, like all other aspects of the curriculum
have wonderful tie-ins to the history of mankind and to the development
of mankind as a whole. It is just a matter of not getting "stuck"
intime or bringing things in too early
or avoiding things that the children are growing into.

As far as early childhood education is concerned,
I have watched children play and kick on the playground (I always
had balls available) and I don't remember ever saying "don't
do that." But I do think I would have and probably did get
out there and encourage some throwing games. Actually, the throwing/catching
ball games are even more challenging to younger children and
they love it when you set up "baskets" or other "targets"
or get some together to try to "keep it up in the air".
I have also observed that the children who naturally gravitated
toward kicking tended to be a bit more aggressive and less willing
toplay more cooperative games. This is
not meant to be a judgment, just a suggestion that teachers and
parents really try to observe their children on theplayground or in the yard with friends and try to
be objective and say, "What doI
really see in front of me? What is my child expressing here?
What is my child receiving from this activity? Is is mostly beneficial
for his or her particular personality? Or do I see a trend that
may need something to balance it over time?"

Also, for young children (before 7 definitely)
sports should only be games and the emphasis should be on everyone
playing together, not winners and losers.

I think the best of modern educational psychology
would back me up on that and I am willing to do some reseach
if anyone feels that this is an unfounded statement. Even the
early "second seven" finds children still awfully fragile
emotionally and competitive sport can be too much for most of
them. Observation and knowing the individual child is always
the key as well as good DISCERNMENT!!!

I lost my love of football (American) when
the 49ers lost the third Superbowl back in the ? late seventies???
O MY GOD - how OLD am I??? There will never be another Montana/
Rice/ Craig/ Taylor combo - never!! : (

I've looked, and Steiner does not say anyting
about soccer in the Waldorf schools, either for or against. Those
Waldorf educators who have decided that soccer and Waldorf Education
are incompatible (such as Will Crane in Spring Valley) have done
so out of their own work and have thier own carefully elaborated
reasons. I haven't persued the issue in sufficient depth to have
formed an opinion on it myself. Soccer is played in a large number
of Waldorf scools, especially in the US. It is also not played
in a number of Waldorf schools for various reasons, including
the belief that Steiner spoke against it. Other reasons I have
heard include a general aversion to competitive sports (which
seems to originate more a cultural bias of one portion of the
'60s counterculture than from a carefully examined pedagogical
basis) and the opinion that engaging the feet instead of the
hands would have negative pedagogical implications.

Soccer is played in a large number of Waldorf
scools, especially in the US. It is also not played in a number
of Waldorf schools for various reasons, including the belief
that Steiner spoke against it. Other reasons I have heard include
a general aversion to competitive sports (which seems to originate
more a cultural bias of one portion of the '60s counterculture
than from a carefully examined pedagogical basis) and the opinion
that engaging the feet instead of the hands would have negative
pedagogical implications.

Soccer is not played at the Detroit Waldorf
School, primarily (I believe) because the soccer season would
interfer with the two 'traditional' competitive sports at the
school -- basketball and softball. Competitive sports are not
introduced until 5th grade... the children are *fiercely* competitive
once they do begin to play. The DWS Warriors have a long tradition
of winning tournaments, and this year's jr. varsity (5/6th grade)
girls team won the city championship in the new ThinkDetroit
league (non-public school league).

I have heard teachers express concern over
the use of the head as a tool in soccer. As noted earlier, recent
medical studies also mention this as an area of concern.

Those Waldorf educators who have decided
that soccer and Waldorf Education are incompatible (such as Will
Crane in Spring Valley) have done so out of their own work and
have thier own carefully elaborated reasons.

The question that triggered this discussion
initially had to do with soccer and brain injury, and quoted
a statistic that 34% of recreational soccer players showed evidence
of brain injury. Similar statistics can be found in scientific
studies conducted in Europe, though these studies are described
as "suggestive" rather than "definitive".
Though I can't say I've read much Steiner, using statistics like
this as support to an argument doesn't sound much like Steiner,
does it? Sounds like a newspaper headlines, maybe, but not Steiner.

In the classic WC manner, the question put
to them ("anybody know where I can check out this statistic?")
is almost complete ignored, too often in order to pursue wild
guesses and nutty conjectures.

I haven't persued the issue in sufficient
depth to have formed an opinion on it myself. Soccer is played
in a large number of Waldorf scools, especially in the US. It
is also not played in a number of Waldorf schools for various
reasons, including the belief that Steiner spoke against it.
Other reasons I have heard include a general aversion to competitive
sports (which seems to originate more a cultural bias of one
portion of the '60s counterculture than from a carefully examined
pedagogical basis) and the opinion that engaging the feet instead
of the hands would have negative pedagogical implications.

People invest a lot of emotion into their
own concepts of "competitive sports", both for and
against. The battles between these competing concepts is as nasty
as the competitive contests themselves. Years ago I took a class
at university on Sociology of Sport, which linked sports to geopolitics,
patriarcal social systems, religion, you name it. There are probably
psychologists dedicating their careers to the subject along with
the sociologists. Child experts, parents, business leaders, everybody
has a strong opinion. Seems even kids want to debate each other
about which sports are the "best" and the "worst".
Seems to be a rarity these days to find someone who can view
competitive sports as simply a fun game to watch or play.